masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Relax manual of style verifiability requirements in limited circumstances
I think this manual of style tweak is an almost existential need for the ME3 parts of the wiki. Because of the high bar set for verification even for gameplay mechanics, a non-trivial amount of the information in the ME3 parts of the wikia is either incomplete or incorrect, and a quick play-through of ME3 multiplayer can quickly show this. Moreover, the verification requirement creates an odd situation where "strategic" information can be put on the wiki that can make un-verifiable or invalid assumptions (as present in virtually all of the ME3 singleplayer/multiplayer class guides), but an actual listing of gameplay mechanics backed up by extensive community testing and experimentation cannot be used. I hope this doesn't proposal doesn't come off as antagonistic; I realize the ME wiki has been here for a long time before I came here and the community has a way of doing things. I earnestly want to help improve the ME wiki (namely a lot of the ME3 mechanics stuff) but the bar of mechanics verification is literally impossibly high. And as someone who relies on wikia sites for all sorts of different games, I really don't want to be in the sad situation where anytime I am trying to refresh my memory on what a power does I have to ignore all search results that come from masseffect.wikia.com. (Thelee (talk) 18:01, May 14, 2013 (UTC)) Voting Support Neutral Oppose # LilyheartsLiara (talk) 18:57, May 14, 2013 (UTC) # Like Lily has said, at least some of the methods on the BSN forums are unreliable and vague. There's a reason why we only take the devs' words: they've made the game. Also, the bugs reported over there are rather rare, from what I can tell. Nord Ronnoc (talk) 19:27, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Discussion To pick apart this policy proposal flaw by flaw: "Is supported by in-game testing with explicit numbers and test parameters." – As I've said elsewhere, how can anyone know if a.) tests were actually done, b.) tests were done in a manner that ensures that the perceived results are accurate, and c.) that the results are actually what the person is claiming them to be? There is nothing special about BSN members—they are random people on the internet, not people who have actually programmed the game. Their word should not be taken as undeniable fact just because they say so. "Must be the the last or latest discussion on the matter." – This is basically saying that earlier opinions are less valid based solely on the fact that people have expressed other opinions later on. "There must be general consensus in the follow-up discussion, which implies that... The discussion must be a reasonably high-trafficked thread." – This part simply boils down to "if a bunch of people think it's right, then it must be". The opinions of a few people do not dictate reality. "Non-BSN sites cannot be conditionally valid, as other sites do not receive as much attention for gameplay mechanics discussion, and generally any non-BSN discussion on gameplay mechanics should still source a BSN discussion." – Users on other forums are random people on the internet. Who are BSN users? Random people on the internet. People are not automatically more trustworthy based on where they post their opinions. This policy boils down to taking the word of random people on the internet for no good reason—taking their word that they've actually run tests, taking their word on these extremely precise numbers they're claiming, taking their word that they are basing their information off of game data, taking their word on factors that are impossible to accurately measure in-game. What someone claims about their opinions or where they post their opinions does not negate the need for solid proof of information that is posted on the wiki. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 19:12, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :1. "Their word should not be taken as undeniable fact just because they say so." We aren't. I don't know if you're representative of editors on the ME wiki, but have we forgotten what wikis are? The whole idea of a wiki is a source of knowledge that anyone can edit, and in so doing eventually we attain a general consensus of "truth." On wikipedia itself, this is referred to as NPOV (neutral point of view). So no, we don't take their word for it, but visibility of test data, etc. allows for verifiability and falsifiability. This is how you learn things, not just for gameplay mechanics (since literally no original IP computer game has completely disclosed 100% of their mechanics) but in knowledge in general. :2. "This is basically saying that earlier opinions are less valid based solely on the fact that people have expressed other opinions later on." No, this is not. This is to account for the fact that discussions are ongoing, and pulling out an early test run of data for something ignores later test runs that have been done with corrected hypotheses or improved parameters. :3. "This part simply boils down to "if a bunch of people think it's right, then it must be"." No, it doesn't. This is basically peer review. This is how scientific theories are made. IF someone posts a bunch of test data and no one comments then we have no verifiability of its accuracy. If, however, someone posts test data, other people talk about it, find flaws in it, corrections are made, then we are better able to ascertain its accuracy. :4. "Users on other forums are random people on the internet. Who are BSN users?" BSN users are the ones actively making gameplay mechanics discussions. BSN is also where official bioware reps live, so it becomes convenient for BSN users to quickly link to devconfirmed equations and numbers. BSN is also significantly more heavily trafficked than yahoo answers. :5. "This policy boils down to taking the word of random people on the internet for no good reason—taking their word that they've actually run tests, taking their word on these extremely precise numbers they're claiming, taking their word that they are basing their information off of game data, taking their word on factors that are impossible to accurately measure in-game. What someone claims about their opinions or where they post their opinions does not negate the need for solid proof of information that is posted on the wiki." No, it doesn't. The policy explicitly stipulates mechanisms to verify the data that is being posed (either by test data or self-evidentness). Refusal or lack of desire to actually test the data does not make the data incorrect. (Thelee (talk) 19:31, May 14, 2013 (UTC)) ::"The whole idea of a wiki is a source of knowledge that anyone can edit, and in so doing eventually we attain a general consensus of 'truth.'" – Except how can you have a consensus on "truth" when it is impossible for people to actually measure these things? Does "consensus" mean that you should ignore any nay-sayers? ::"This is to account for the fact that discussions are ongoing, and pulling out an early test run of data for something ignores later test runs that have been done with corrected hypotheses or improved parameters." – And what guarantees that later tests wouldn't have good hypotheses or poor parameters? What guarantees that a later test is invariably more trustworthy than a later test? ::"No, it doesn't. This is basically peer review. This is how scientific theories are made." – Okay, what proof is there that people who say that someone on BSN is right have actually done any testing of their own? ::"BSN users are the ones actively making gameplay mechanics discussions. BSN is also where official bioware reps live, so it becomes convenient for BSN users to quickly link to devconfirmed equations and numbers." – Anyone on the internet can discuss gameplay mechanics in any forum. Anyone on the internet can access developer-confirmed data on the BSN. This argument boils down to "BSN is better than everyone else because". ::"No, it doesn't. The policy explicitly stipulates mechanisms to verify the data that is being posed (either by test data or self-evidentness). Refusal or lack of desire to actually test the data does not make the data incorrect." – And the sources for the information you've attempted to add doesn't do any of that. Furthermore, it is simply impossible to test the data because it is impossible to measure things in-game to the degree of precision that these threads claim. It is simply impossible to determine that power combos do x(A) damage on (B) difficulty because there is nothing in the game that displays enemy health to the degree of precision that you can say "yes, it definitely does x(A) damage on (B) difficulty, and certainly not x(A+0.00001) or x(A-0.00001)". LilyheartsLiara (talk) 20:00, May 14, 2013 (UTC) Why should BSN be a reliable source? How are these tests made on the BSN? --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 19:28, May 14, 2013 (UTC) :BSN is "more reliable" because it is heavily trafficked. Which increases the likelihood that other people will verify data and offer corrections if things do not match up. (Thelee (talk) 19:32, May 14, 2013 (UTC)) I think what immediately crops up in this discussion is that no one seems to mind yet that there is literally information that is wrong or incomplete on the ME3 wiki. Sometimes it can be trivially shown that the information is wrong, sometimes you need test data to show that it is wrong, but the point is there is literally incorrect or wrong information that cannot be proven solely from devconfirmation. Editors are OK with that? (Thelee (talk) 19:33, May 14, 2013 (UTC)) :Unsurprisingly, you're making a claim, not providing any evidence whatsoever, and insisting that people should simply take your word for it. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 20:00, May 14, 2013 (UTC)